http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41058851

 

Usually I try to avoid all news concerning Trump, but this one caught my eye. Not because the person he pardoned (who I feel is scum of this earth, but that's beside the point), but more so the whole pardoning thing. Can someone explain to me what pardoning actually is and what it does. What is he pardoned for and why does the President have a right to pardon someone. To me as an outsider it seems like a very big breach of the concept of separation of power. 

I'm fairly sure that most legal systems allow the Head of State to issue pardons. As doing the "lawful" thing isn't always the "right" thing, by design, this institution serves to give some flexibility while keeping the rule of law intact.

 

This of courese assumes that the Head of State is using this power responsibly

But how many countries have both a Presidential veto and a Presidential pardon? I know most legal systems have some sort of pardon, but usually that power lies within Parliament as a whole, not a single person. This is the exact reason why I ask what the pardon actually entails, because this system to me seems busted if one single person has the power to completely shut down any sort of separation of power and just exert and power through with his own.  

I really don't know what the common practice is, but I would find it odd if Parliaments had the power to issue pardons. The reason why pardons can usually be issued by the Heads of State (who are often not the head of the executive branch, but rather a more "politically neutral" person) is specifically this, of course it does vary from country to country. Do you know of any example where pardons are issued by Parliament?

I am not sure how other governments work in regard to pardons, but the President has no one that I am aware of to stop him from pardoning who he/she wants. Normally the Pres waits until near the end of his term to hand out pardons (one exception is when Ford pardoned Nixon in the 70's). I would be more concerned that Pres. Trump has just told all law enforcement that it doesn't matter what a court says, do what you want and I'll pardon you afterwards.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the US Constitution gives the President of the US the power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. It is one of the least limited powers of the President. This is how he can do it... now for the who.

 

Do you know Sheriff Joe Arpaio? He is 85 years old. He served in the US Army from 1950-1954. He was a Police Officer in Las Vegas Nevada in 1957, transitioned into the Drug Enforcement Administration where he was stationed in Turkey, Argentina, and Mexico, then became the head of the DEA in Arizona for 25 years. He was elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona six times from 1992 to 2017. He was known as America's Toughest Sheriff. When you went to jail in Maricopa County... it was less likely you would ever be back in jail in Maricopa County ever again. Sheriff Joe did not run a fun place to be. The people of Arizona elected Sheriff Joe because they wanted him, and an end to the illegal immigration problem. Sheriff Joe was very effective at his job. Democrats, Progressives, Socialists, and every other group on the left, hate Sheriff Joe Arpaio. It was a political hit job, and this man that has dedicated his life to Law Enforcement and the protection of the American people, should never be persecuted this way.

 

I met Sheriff Joe in 2010. He's a very funny man with a lot of juicy stories to tell. We should build a monument and we need many more just like him. If I can accept Obama's pardon of Bradley Manning... which was appalling... then this should not be a problem.

I'm not gonna start, you think it's o.k. and I do not. I also do not agree with Manning being pardoned. I'm done here. 

I do understand when a bunch of people start pounding a drum, that it's hard to not start tapping your foot.

It has nothing to do with "drum pounding". I disagree with the decision.

I'm fairly sure that most legal systems allow the Head of State to issue pardons. As doing the "lawful" thing isn't always the "right" thing, by design, this institution serves to give some flexibility while keeping the rule of law intact.

 

This of courese assumes that the Head of State is using this power responsibly

 

Yeah, I would at most "allow" such a clear breach in seperation of power if it was meant to "rectify" a (past!) lapse in the law. I can't think of a reason to pardon someone even before the intended sentence was started/carried out. Then you are indeed just trotting over the seperation of power without regard for it.

 

For this case, it very clearly tramples the seperation as the pardon is issued on a "criminal contempt of court" ruling (first ruling by a G.W. Bush judge, actual contempt issued by a Clinton judge, for people who wanna draw the Dem-card.) and put together both the defendants remarks (for god sakes, his sherrifs office has paid over 10M to judiciary members for herrasements charges and related) and Trump, it is pretty clear this is a "witch hunt" against a "witch hunt".

 

 

I really don't know what the common practice is, but I would find it odd if Parliaments had the power to issue pardons. The reason why pardons can usually be issued by the Heads of State (who are often not the head of the executive branch, but rather a more "politically neutral" person) is specifically this, of course it does vary from country to country. Do you know of any example where pardons are issued by Parliament?

 

Our king can pardon, and does so yearly on a diminishing number. The cases brought towards him are transferred to a special department in our Ministery of Justice and then brought forward to the king so he can "hand them out". Nearly all cases are related to shortening the jailtime, mainly cause various other punishments can't be adjusted/pardoned.

Basically how pardons work here is you generally have to request them. They can only be granted for federal crimes with exception of impeachments. Pardons can come in many forms and do not always absolve people completely. They can be conditional or simply lighten punishments. They can also be issued before any indictments or for unspecified federal offenses. For example, when Nixon was pardoned, his pardon absolved him of any offenses against the US that he may or may not have committed within a specific time frame. Pardons also can and have been rejected by intended recipients. 

Whether pardons are constitutional has never actually been addressed by the supreme court. So there is no shortage of debate and controversy. 

Do you know of any example where pardons are issued by Parliament?

 

In 2007 in The Netherlands here there was a big 'General Pardon' involving immigration, which pardoned a certain group of immigrants (a couple of criteria had to be met to fall under this group) and gave them a residence permit, even though the rules at the time didn't give them one. Parliament had to vote for it.   

 

Also I think Betsy nailed it on the head. I think it's iffy that Arpaio was let off the hook pre-emptively via this pardon, whilst it would seem that a pardon should be used in cases of conviction. Again I don't want to debate the whole Arpaio thing. There is nothing I can say that will make Lys change his mind about him and vice versa and quite frankly I could care less about the person in question. I'm more concerned with the whole legal use of power. 

In 2007 in The Netherlands here there was a big 'General Pardon' involving immigration, which pardoned a certain group of immigrants (a couple of criteria had to be met to fall under this group) and gave them a residence permit, even though the rules at the time didn't give them one. Parliament had to vote for it.

.

Would rather call that "amnestie", part cause a pardon doesn't exonerate your crime (amnestie does, in my book) and part cause it is given post-conviction.

 

ooo our belgian government loves collective amnestie (should be collective as you "wipe out" a crime, not a conviction, regardess of amount of people in the wrong). Think we have had 5 "last time amnestie law" surrounding foreighn hold bank accounts...

.

Also I think Betsy nailed it on the head. I think it's iffy that Arpaio was let off the hook pre-emptively via this pardon, whilst it would seem that a pardon should be used in cases of conviction. Again I don't want to debate the whole Arpaio thing. There is nothing I can say that will make Lys change his mind about him and vice versa and quite frankly I could care less about the person in question. I'm more concerned with the whole legal use of power.

.

He was convicted thou, he just didn't have his sentence yet (americans are weird like that).

A quick Google-search gave me this result (lol, had no idea a site like this existed!): http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/culture-miscellaneous/difference-between-amnesty-and-pardon/

 

Seems fair.

In India we have following types

 

1. Pardon: It removes both the sentence and the conviction and completely absolves the convict from all sentences, punishments and disqualifications.
2. Commutation: It denotes the substitution of one form of punishment for a lighter form. For example, a death sentence may be commuted to rigorous imprisonment, which in turn may be commuted to a simple imprisonment.
3. Remission: It implies reducing the period of sentence without changing its character. For example, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years may be remitted to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
4. Respite: It denotes awarding a lesser sentence in place of one originally awarded due to some special fact, such as the physical disability of a convict or the pregnancy of a woman offender.
5. Reprieve: It implies a stay of the execution of a sentence (especially that of death) for a temporary period. Its purpose is to enable the convict to have time to seek pardon or commutation from the President.
 

 

President of India can grant pardon on matters of Union law including death sentence and martial law

Governors of provinces(states) can also pardon against State laws only except death sentence and martial law

This is an article that speaks particularly to some of the actions this former sheriff did. I don't think he represents the values we have in the U.S. Ignoring the Constitution by treating citizens differently

based on their original country of origin isnt American when we are at out best. httpsww.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/a-flagrant-assault-on-latino-civil-rights/538119/

This is an article that speaks particularly to some of the actions this former sheriff did. I don't think he represents the values we have in the U.S. Ignoring the Constitution by treating citizens differently

based on their original country of origin isnt American when we are at out best. httpsww.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/a-flagrant-assault-on-latino-civil-rights/538119/

Hi Nabu!... The first two words in that address tells me all I need to know about "this article". The Atlantic is a leftie editorial portal equivalent to Breitbart on the right. It's purpose is to bend the truth to the left and influence their readers opinions. In our new world of fake news, it only serves as entertainment to their base... a constant source of energy to keep the flame alive. I'm tired of all of it.

 

How the Sheriff did his job is determined by Arizona Law. His success is determined by Maricopa County voters. The opinions of anyone in Petaluma California, or Long Island, New York... mean nothing. It would have to be proven in a Federal Court that Sheriff Joe broke a Federal Law. This never happened. Sheriff Joe was convicted by a judges decree that he was in contempt of court. This is not possible because Sheriff Joe acted on advice from his council, and he can't be held in contempt by following advice from his attorneys. He was never found guilty of the charges of profiling. He was denied a jury trial, because they knew he would never be found guilty by a jury. This was a complete, and total, political dog and pony show... designed to destroy one of their biggest enemies.

 

Have you known anyone that has been incarcerated in the Maricopa County prison system? I have. My brother has been a lifelong drug addict and has spent the better part of the last 20 years in Maricopa County prisons. Yes he wore the pink underwear, ate the bologna sandwiches, and listened to the Frank Sinatra music. He's fine, and did his time. He got out a couple years ago, and I have no idea where he is now. If he's not dead, he's cooking meth somewhere. My father did 30 days in the tent city for drunk driving. That's what the tent cities are for... the short termers. The drunk drivers, the wife beaters, and the shoplifters. He made it through just fine... and he died 10 years later of liver failure. Sheriff Joe Arpaio did his job well. He enforces immigration laws... that's why they hate him.

Woah, don't know what got me here. Wrong thread.

Sheriff Joe Arpai is a convicted criminal - period. He was pardoned. A president is allowed to pardon convicted criminals.

 

A president is allowed to veto bills that make it through congress. Congress can then override a presidential veto. That is part of the checks and balances our founders set up,

 

Presidents are supposed to be honorable, outstanding people, elected to the most important position in the country. Not every president has been honorable or dedicated to the good of the country. This president won the unpopular vote, which gave him enough electoral votes to beat the person who won the popular vote. It happens. He is not the first. The electoral college is an antiquiquated system that permitted his election. Life is not fair. We do the best we can with what we have to work with. Sometimes we don't do very well. Hopefully we work to improve things in the future.

 

The concept of a head of state pardoning people dates back to ancient times. Sometimes it was used well. Other times it was abused. Clearly a huge group of Americans are appalled by this pardon. Clearly others (particularly those who march in nationalist rallies waving hate flags - just saying) are pleased. It really doesn't matter what public opinion is on the matter, presidents are allowed to pardon criminals. There are no checks and balances on that.

We have 50 states in our Republic. Since the birth of our nation, not one President was ever elected on the premise that they received the most votes from the states with the most people. I don't know about you, but I don't feel comfortable with our President being chosen by California... nor did our founders wish our President to be chosen by New York or Virginia. I do believe that if 50 million new Republican voters ended up in Texas or Alaska, you would be singing a different song... but I'm all for getting things right, so get your people to draft up that Constitutional amendment and get two thirds of the states to ratify that monster... and then we will allow California to elect our President. After that gets finalized, maybe people will stop complaining about it.

Hi Nabu!... The first two words in that address tells me all I need to know about "this article". The Atlantic is a leftie editorial portal equivalent to Breitbart on the right. It's purpose is to bend the truth to the left and influence their readers opinions. In our new world of fake news, it only serves as entertainment to their base... a constant source of energy to keep the flame alive. I'm tired of all of it.

You're WAY off if you're comparing the Atlantic to Breitbart, and shows that you've likely never read the Atlantic. I'd agree if you said that about the Huffington Post or more accurately Salon.

Oh yeah? How many Conservative writers call it home? Any Trump supporters? Hell, how about a Ryan supporter? Endorsements of any Republicans? Anything? At least Breitbart calls Trump out when he's not toeing the Conservative line. The only place I know that gives left and right a fair shake is Fox... if you don't believe me just watch Shepard Smith for 5 minutes... he's a dyed in the wool Trump hater. The Atlantic, The Guardian, Huff Po, Vox, Daily Kos, Salon, Daily Beast, New York Times... they're all the same Globalist, Socialist, Progressive, Conservative hating, liars. I will not give them one click of my support.

 

Have to edit this... The Drudge Report puts up everything. Matt Drudge is a Conservative that has no problem beating the hell out of Republicans for failing, or giving Democrats props when they succeed.

Wait, did you just consider Breitbart to be GOP affilated?

We have 50 states in our Republic. Since the birth of our nation, not one President was ever elected on the premise that they received the most votes from the states with the most people. I don't know about you, but I don't feel comfortable with our President being chosen by California... nor did our founders wish our President to be chosen by New York or Virginia. I do believe that if 50 million new Republican voters ended up in Texas or Alaska, you would be singing a different song... but I'm all for getting things right, so get your people to draft up that Constitutional amendment and get two thirds of the states to ratify that monster... and then we will allow California to elect our President. After that gets finalized, maybe people will stop complaining about it.

I would be singing this tune no matter what. It should be national majority. Everyone gets equal votes instead of giving weight to individual states. The electoral college existed because people couldn't communicate quickly and easily AND because our founders realized the average person was not very intelligent. We aren't necessarily more intelligent, but we can more easily have a national election. And I can promise you our founders did not think about California at all since it wasn't a state. Our founders would have hated an imperialist or oligarchy government. That is why they called all Americans equal.

Oh yeah? How many Conservative writers call it home? Any Trump supporters? Hell, how about a Ryan supporter? Endorsements of any Republicans? Anything? At least Breitbart calls Trump out when he's not toeing the Conservative line. The only place I know that gives left and right a fair shake is Fox... if you don't believe me just watch Shepard Smith for 5 minutes... he's a dyed in the wool Trump hater. The Atlantic, The Guardian, Huff Po, Vox, Daily Kos, Salon, Daily Beast, New York Times... they're all the same Globalist, Socialist, Progressive, Conservative hating, liars. I will not give them one click of my support.

 

Have to edit this... The Drudge Report puts up everything. Matt Drudge is a Conservative that has no problem beating the hell out of Republicans for failing, or giving Democrats props when they succeed.

I'm not really interested in the left-right dichotomy, but I'm very much interested in looking at things from a reasonable angle. I generally like the writers at the Atlantic, but I also give credit to journalists like Dennis Prager. They might have an affiliation, but they are also interested in genuine and honest debate. As such, I find Breitbart and HuffPo/Salon equally contemptible, as they're only interested in pushing their ideologies and they don't mind if they have to lie or create fake news to do it.